₦airaland Forum

naijadeyhia:
How convenient right? Somehow all proof vanishes or there is always an excuse why we cannot have tangible proof. How pathetic and convenient scientists can be don't you think so?

If I told you I owned a car and everytime I come to visit you I come a bike an you keel asking me about my car and i always have an excuse to give you about why I didnt come with it....like engine troubles, traffic jam, and so on. I am sure you would begin to wonder if I actually do have a car.

But other species exist. Haven't you seen the archaeopteryx?

naijadeyhia:
Ignorance is bliss isn't it? So you actually think the whole world was flooded? When the world referred to was the Mediterranean region. You guys need to go to a pawn shop and pawn your brains for something better...something like a molecule.

Gen 7:4- For after seven more days I will cause it to rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and I will destroy from the face of the earth all living things that I have made.”

V19- And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered.

V21- And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man.

V23- So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth. Only Noah and those who were with him in the ark remained alive.

Of course, genius!

UyiIredia:
Nonsense. The bacteria could already digest citrate in anaerobic conditions. The only difference between the samples and their descendants is the fact that their descendants digest citrate in aerobic conditions due to being constantly exposed to it by Lenski.

That's actually a great argument for evolution.

naijadeyhia:
Most baby mammals feed on milk at infancy and 40 days isnt that long to cause chaos in their systems. Its simple intelligence bro. Cows, oxen,goats, mooses etc all produce milk. Some of them may have been brought in as adults in order to serve as milk generators to feed the ones yet in infancy so focus of tending and feeding would be more on the adults than on the infants.

Truth is if you sit down and think about it a little even you would see how easy it would be to draw up a feeding method and cleaning method.

But you just refuse to think because that is your trademark.

Sure, because cow's milk is great for a baby wolf.

naijadeyhia:
And what is so hard to believe about that? Some animals eat once a week and while some animal waste serves as food for others.

How many children did Noah have?

All you have to do now is conjure a theory as to how the plants survived that you can use to trick the ignorant.

naijadeyhia:
Did it ever occur to you that when the bible says 2 of every animal it never said if the animals should be fully grown?

Only fully grown animals are territorial. Baby animals know no better.

Any simple calculation would still live that theory dead in the water. Deader than dead.

KingEbukaNaija:
It does not matter actually . You can choose to take the creation story literally or figuratively too . What matters is your soul making heaven at last .

Ecclesiastes 12:13
13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

You didn't answer the question. Did that sh.it go down or not?

naijadeyhia:
Second rebuttal.


According to the most-widely accepted theory of evolution today, the sole mechanism for producing evolution is that of random mutation combined with natural selection. Mutations are random changes in genetic systems. Natural selection is considered by evolutionists to be a sort of sieve, which retains the "good" mutations and allows the others to pass away.

Since random changes in ordered systems almost always will decrease the amount of order in those systems, nearly all mutations are harmful to the organisms which experience them. Nevertheless, the evolutionist insists that each complex organism in the world today has arisen by a long string of gradually accumulated good mutations preserved by natural selection. No one has ever actually observed a genuine mutation occurring in the natural environment which was beneficial (that is, adding useful genetic information to an existing genetic code), and therefore, retained by the selection process. For some reason, however, the idea has a certain persuasive quality about it and seems eminently reasonable to many people—until it is examined quantitatively, that is!

For example, consider a very simple putative organism composed of only 200 integrated and functioning parts, and the problem of deriving that organism by this type of process. The system presumably must have started with only one part and then gradually built itself up over many generations into its 200-part organization. The developing organism, at each successive stage, must itself be integrated and functioning in its environment in order to survive until the next stage. Each successive stage, of course, becomes statistically less likely than the preceding one, since it is far easier for a complex system to break down than to build itself up. A four-component integrated system can more easily "mutate" (that is, somehow suddenly change) into a three-component system (or even a four-component non-functioning system) than into a five-component integrated system. If, at any step in the chain, the system mutates "downward," then it is either destroyed altogether or else moves backward, in an evolutionary sense.

Therefore, the successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires, at least, 200 successive, successful such "mutations," each of which is highly unlikely. Even evolutionists recognize that true mutations are very rare, and beneficial mutations are extremely rare—not more than one out of a thousand mutations are beneficial, at the very most.

But let us give the evolutionist the benefit of every consideration. Assume that, at each mutational step, there is equally as much chance for it to be good as bad. Thus, the probability for the success of each mutation is assumed to be one out of two, or one-half. Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½)200, or one chance out of 1060. The number 1060, if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros." In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Lest anyone think that a 200-part system is unreasonably complex, it should be noted that even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular "parts."

The evolutionist might react by saying that even though any one such mutating organism might not be successful, surely some around the world would be, especially in the 10 billion years (or 1018 seconds) of assumed earth history. Therefore, let us imagine that every one of the earth's 1014 square feet of surface harbors a billion (i.e., 109) mutating systems and that each mutation requires one-half second (actually it would take far more time than this). Each system can thus go through its 200 mutations in 100 seconds and then, if it is unsuccessful, start over for a new try. In 1018 seconds, there can, therefore, be 1018/102, or 1016, trials by each mutating system. Multiplying all these numbers together, there would be a total possible number of attempts to develop a 200-component system equal to 1014 (109) (1016), or 1039 attempts. Since the probability against the success of any one of them is 1060, it is obvious that the probability that just one of these 1039 attempts might be successful is only one out of 1060/1039, or 1021.

All this means that the chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion. What possible conclusion, therefore, can we derive from such considerations as this except that evolution by mutation and natural selection is mathematically and logically indefensible!

*drops mic again and walks away*

Evolution is not a chance event. You completely failed to factor natural selection into your calculations. Also, I hope you realize that the most common type of mutation is the neutral type. Not only beneficial mutations would been influence evolution.

naijadeyhia:
So if the trilobite had a hard exo or endoskeleton what did its ancestor have ? Surely for it to have an endo skeleton somewhere in its ancestral line there must have been one with an endoskeleton as well as that endoskeleton did not suddenly appear. If it did suddenly appear then I can also demand to see a turtlebird appear too.

I doubt that a transitional skeleton (something cartilaginous?) or shell (like a leather-back turtle?) would survive over a billion years before turning into some form of organic compound.

naijadeyhia:
So the new traits are called evolution?

Evolution is the development of new genetic traits over successive generations.

naijadeyhia:
Did you read where I said in my statement that no scientist has observed a mutation occur in its natural environment and not lenskis conveniently prepared lab experiment. Was lenskis carried out using naturally occuring elements in the environment? CAPITAL NO. Prove to me that he did and I will shut up.


Richard Lenski incorrectly included generations of the E. coli already known to contain Cit+ variants in his experiments. Once these generations are removed from the analysis, the data disprove Lenski's hypothesis

It was error to include generations of the E. coli already known to contain trace Cit+ variants. The highly improbable occurrence of four Cit+ variants from the 32,000th generation in the Second Experiment suggests an origin from undetected, pre-existing Cit+ variants.

The Third Experiment was erroneously combined with the other two experiments based on outcome rather than sample size, thereby yielding a false claim of overall statistical significance. Lenski's paper applied the Whitlock Z-transformation incorrectly, perhaps intentionally so, in making a claim that Lenski's results were "extremely significant". Lenski's "whether or not" refers to two incorrect applications of the Whitlock technique, obscuring how the straightforward, correct weighting based on sample size was not used. Lenski paper deliberately conceals the misapplication.

Lenski's paper claims that "During 30,000 generations, each population experienced billions of mutations, far more than the number of possible point mutations in the approximately 4.6-million-bp genome. This ratio implies, to a first approximation, that each population tried every typical one-step mutation many times." Lenski's conclusion is nonsensical because it assumes that the mutations are completely random and that each mutation has a roughly equal probability.


Again I ask you to show me the natural environment behind lenskis experiment. His experiment has been disapproved many times by science and statistics same way I just showed you in this post.

You know why I love science but hate scientists? Science gives you as it is but put a scientist in the mix and what you get are convenient lies to boost their reputation. Perhaps you need to research on lenski yourself

Cc seun, cloudgoddess

This is the worst refutation of the Lenski experiment I've ever seen. First, an experiment is supposed to be controlled in order to minimize outside interference. Like, seriously?

The experiment was practised so meticulously that the general size increase that was seen in two separate colour-coded bacterial tribes was found to be caused by the change in expression of 59 genes. From two separate tries with no intermixing. Only similar conditions.

When a particular trigger of the bacteria evolved the ability to digest citrate at about generation 33,000 they tested several frozen specimen across generations and found that specimen after generation 20,000 were more likely to start digesting citrate. No sample before then was able to do the same thing. This implies that we probably witnessed the development of a beneficial trait through successive mutations. Could it be some form of biochemical inroad made by mutation? Maybe.

But seriously, trying to fault this experiment would never help your argument. The entire report is available on the internet. Maybe you should read that.

naijadeyhia:
Let me start from here.

The dominant life form was the now-extinct sea creature known as a trilobite, up to a foot long, with a distinctive head and tail, a body made up of several parts, and a complex respiratory system. But although there are many places on earth where 5,000 feet of sedimentary rock stretch unbroken and uniformly beneath the Cambrian layer not a single indisputable multi-celled fossil has been found there. It is ‘the enigma of paleontological enigmas,’ . Darwin himself said he could give ‘no satisfactory answer’ to why no fossils had been discovered. Today’s scientists are none the wiser”

Question: If, after almost two centuries of digging beneath all the world’s continents, no previous ancestor of this first hard-bodied creature has been found, how then did the ubiquitous trilobite evolve? There should be some previous ancestor if evolution were true.

It’s like finding an exquisite watch on the seashore and yet never finding any previous primitive models of the watch on earth. If you reasoned as an evolutionist, you would deny there was a need for a watchmaker at all, maintaining that time, water, sand, minerals and actions of the elements are sufficient to producing a fully functional watch that runs.

The simple reason you don't find many soft-bodied multicellular organisms is because non-calcified animal remains do not readily fossilize. Organisms with hard exo- or endoskeletons ate far more likely to fossilize.

naijadeyhia:
Second rebuttal.


According to the most-widely accepted theory of evolution today, the sole mechanism for producing evolution is that of random mutation combined with natural selection. Mutations are random changes in genetic systems. Natural selection is considered by evolutionists to be a sort of sieve, which retains the "good" mutations and allows the others to pass away.

Since random changes in ordered systems almost always will decrease the amount of order in those systems, nearly all mutations are harmful to the organisms which experience them. Nevertheless, the evolutionist insists that each complex organism in the world today has arisen by a long string of gradually accumulated good mutations preserved by natural selection. No one has ever actually observed a genuine mutation occurring in the natural environment which was beneficial (that is, adding useful genetic information to an existing genetic code), and therefore, retained by the selection process. For some reason, however, the idea has a certain persuasive quality about it and seems eminently reasonable to many people—until it is examined quantitatively, that is!

For example, consider a very simple putative organism composed of only 200 integrated and functioning parts, and the problem of deriving that organism by this type of process. The system presumably must have started with only one part and then gradually built itself up over many generations into its 200-part organization. The developing organism, at each successive stage, must itself be integrated and functioning in its environment in order to survive until the next stage. Each successive stage, of course, becomes statistically less likely than the preceding one, since it is far easier for a complex system to break down than to build itself up. A four-component integrated system can more easily "mutate" (that is, somehow suddenly change) into a three-component system (or even a four-component non-functioning system) than into a five-component integrated system. If, at any step in the chain, the system mutates "downward," then it is either destroyed altogether or else moves backward, in an evolutionary sense.

Therefore, the successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires, at least, 200 successive, successful such "mutations," each of which is highly unlikely. Even evolutionists recognize that true mutations are very rare, and beneficial mutations are extremely rare—not more than one out of a thousand mutations are beneficial, at the very most.

But let us give the evolutionist the benefit of every consideration. Assume that, at each mutational step, there is equally as much chance for it to be good as bad. Thus, the probability for the success of each mutation is assumed to be one out of two, or one-half. Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½)200, or one chance out of 1060. The number 1060, if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros." In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Lest anyone think that a 200-part system is unreasonably complex, it should be noted that even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular "parts."

The evolutionist might react by saying that even though any one such mutating organism might not be successful, surely some around the world would be, especially in the 10 billion years (or 1018 seconds) of assumed earth history. Therefore, let us imagine that every one of the earth's 1014 square feet of surface harbors a billion (i.e., 109) mutating systems and that each mutation requires one-half second (actually it would take far more time than this). Each system can thus go through its 200 mutations in 100 seconds and then, if it is unsuccessful, start over for a new try. In 1018 seconds, there can, therefore, be 1018/102, or 1016, trials by each mutating system. Multiplying all these numbers together, there would be a total possible number of attempts to develop a 200-component system equal to 1014 (109) (1016), or 1039 attempts. Since the probability against the success of any one of them is 1060, it is obvious that the probability that just one of these 1039 attempts might be successful is only one out of 1060/1039, or 1021.

All this means that the chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion. What possible conclusion, therefore, can we derive from such considerations as this except that evolution by mutation and natural selection is mathematically and logically indefensible!

*drops mic again and walks away*

Completely false. There are experiments that show that it is wrong to call most genetic mutations negative. The Lenski experiment had shown us that organisms can undergo successive beneficial mutations to give rise to new traits. Look it up.

shadeyinka:
Mr CoolUsername. Aren't straight people born that way too?

It is know that there are things we learn as a result of our associations. There are things that are coded into our nature by inheritance and there are things we do by instinct.

Just as by instinct, every normal baby suck, every normal human being is designed to be heterosexual.

Kleptomanism, Paedophilism...Homosexualism are just symptoms of an infection of the soul (a disease) which need a cure. Just like Fever, Sickle cell, Diarrhea. ...are symptoms of infection or defect in some organs/ unit part of a person.

You know, I had explained in an earlier post that Demons are spiritual equivalence of diesease causing Pathogens. The resulting behaviour of the demonized person is just an evidence of their infection.

Plaetton has stated his findings and conclusion based on his own experimental design...but in science, nothing really is absolute AND his conclusion could be wrong. There was a time the conconcensos among the best scientists was that the earth was the centre of the solar system.

Homosexaulity is victimless. It's just an inclination. Simple as that.


Don't bring demons into this. Demons are from ancient farmers' fairytales.

naijadeyhia:
Thanks for that answer. Now let me round this up and drop the mic like olamide did.

Even the simplest cell you can conceive of would require no less than 100,000 DNA base pairs and a minimum of about 10,000 amino acids, to form the essential protein chain. Not to mention the other things that would also be necessary for the first cell.

Bear in mind that every single base pair in the DNA chain has to have the same molecular orientation (“left-hand” or “right hand”)? As well as that, virtually all the amino acids must have the opposite orientation. And every one must be without error.

“Now,” to randomly obtain those correct orientations, do you know your chances? It would be 1 chance in 2110,000, or 1 chance in 1033,113!

“To put it another way, if you attempted a trillion, trillion, trillion combinations every second for 15 billion years, the odds you would achieve all the correct orientations would still only be one chance in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion … and the trillions would continue 2755 times!

“It would be like winning more than 4700 state lotteries in a row with a single ticket purchased for each. In other words…impossible.”


*drops mic*

Ps read this again and again till you grasp it. Evolution never happened.

Pick up your mic because there are RNA molecules that exclusively copy molecules of opposite orientation. It even works when there is a orientations in the chain.

naijadeyhia:
So if scientists are not yet conversant with the early earths chemistry and its not possible to replicate the processes how then did they arrive at the big bang theory and early life being supported and evolving?

Please respond to the post I made before this one before you respond to this so I can link both.

That is because physicists are able to read the background radiation in the vacuum of space. The large size of space allows us to see into the past and witness the natural process that give rise to celestial bodies. Unfortunately, we only have fossil records and genetics to see the past in Biology. After so many years of fossil collection everything fits perfectly into the scientific model. Countless predictions have been met countless times and so on.

naijadeyhia:
Now for the scientists amongst the evolutionists permit me to use science to teach you science.

We all know that DNA is the bedrock of human evolutionary theory right? So lets talk about that for a bit.

What are the cellular agents that are necessary for DNA repair and survival? DNA genes! Thus, DNA is necessary for the survival of DNA! But it would have been impossible for DNA repair genes to evolve before ordinary DNA evolved and it would have been impossible for ordinary DNA to evolve before DNA repair genes had evolved.
Here we see another impossible barrier for evolution.

Furthermore, it is ridiculous to imagine that DNA repair genes could have evolved even if a cell existed. DNA genes encode the sequences of the hundreds of amino acids that constitute the proteins that are the actual agents that are involved in DNA repair. The code in the DNA is translated into a messenger RNA (mRNA). The mRNA must then move to and be incorporated into a ribosome (which is made up of three different ribosomal RNAs and 55 different protein molecules). Each amino acid must be coupled to a transfer RNA specific for that amino acid, and the coupling requires a protein enzyme specific for that amino acid and transfer-RNA. Responding to the code on the messenger RNA and utilizing the codes on transfer RNA's, the appropriate amino acids, attached to the transfer RNAs, are attached to the growing protein chain in the order prescribed by the code of the messenger RNA. Many enzymes are required along with appropriate energy. This is only a brief introduction to the incredible complexity of life that is found even in a bacterium.

if what I just stated is wrong please a scientist amongst you should say so.

RNA is said to be a precursor to DNA. It still serves as the genetic material in viruses today. DNA won out because of its higher stability but there is the possibility that the world was an RNA world.

Molecular self-assembly is the process that spontaneously forms complex self-replicating RNA strands from simpler compounds.

naijadeyhia:
Evolution is way beyond your undersranding young man. I know what I am talking about. I used to be neck deep in science that I almost went crazy so let me show you the evolution you do not understand in a simple way. I hope this would be simple enough for you to understand and respond to.

Let us suppose that, as evolutionists suggest, there actually was some way for organic, biologically important molecules to have formed in a significant quantity on a primitive Earth. An indescribable mess would have been the result. In addition to the 20 different amino acids found in proteins today, hundreds of other kinds of amino acids would have been produced. In addition to deoxyribose and ribose, the five-carbon sugars found in DNA and RNA today, a variety of other five-carbon sugars, four-carbon, six-carbon, and seven-carbon sugars would have been produced. In addition to the five purines and pyrimidines found in DNA and RNA today, a great variety of other purines and pyrimidines would exist.

Further, of vital significance, the amino acids in proteins today are exclusively left-handed, but all amino acids on the primitive Earth would be 50% left-handed and 50% right-handed. The sugars in DNA and RNA today are exclusively right-handed, but, if they did exist, sugars on a primitive Earth would have been 50% right-handed and 50% left-handed. If just one right-handed amino acid is in a protein, or just one left-handed sugar is found in a DNA or RNA, all biological activity is destroyed. There would be no mechanism available on a primitive Earth to select the correct form.

This fact alone destroys evolution. Evolutionists have been wrestling with this dilemma since it was first recognized, and there is no solution in sight. All these many varieties would compete with one another, and a great variety of other organic molecules, including aldehydes, ketones, acids, amines, lipids, carbohydrates, etc. would exist. If evolutionists really claim to simulate plausible primitive Earth conditions, why don't they place their reactants in a big mess like this and irradiate it with ultraviolet light, shock it with electric discharges, or heat it, and see what results? They don't do that because they know there wouldn't be the remotest possibility that anything useful for their evolutionary scenario would result. Rather, they carefully select just the starting materials they want to produce amino acids or sugars or purines or whatever, and, furthermore, they employ implausible experimental conditions that would not exist on a primitive Earth. They then claim in textbooks and journal articles that such and such biological molecules would have been produced in abundant quantities on the early earth.

You've step power or of the realm of evolution now straight into abiogenesis theory. Here, nothing is really set in stone as it is difficult to exactly replicate the initial conditions of earth.

The first problem in your line of reasoning is that you believe that replicating the conditions of early earth would produce results when the earliest living molecule existed only existed about a billion years after it's formation.

Abiogenesis is still very hypothetical. Until we're sufficiently conversant with early earth's chemistry, it would be difficult replicate the processes. It is work in progress.

naijadeyhia:
Go to the OP

The OP is full of misconceptions about evolution and basically falls apart on itself. It doesn't scrape the bottom of the barrel when it comes to knowledge about this theory. I want you to state your singular most pressing question. It would be much easier to correct any misconception like that and provide evidence.

EDIT: Tik tok tik tok

Is the Great Flood story to be taken literally or figuratively?

naijadeyhia:
Why do I need to seek for something diligently if I am told the evidence is numerous? Can we not relate the evolutionary process to todays creatures? Show me proof.

Ok. I'm sick and tired of you denying every shred of proof and evidence that comes your way in this thread. Tell me, what exactly are you looking for? What kind of evidence would change your mind?

State it and I'll show you.

SirWere:
Very funny memes...


I would have laughed about the Islamic ones but *coughs* er...........

But you don't want to laugh your head off?

KingEbukaNaija:
Bill Gate is a Christian .

Heaven is here on earth for God's eternal reign - cohabiting with humans - and death only lands the soul in sheol , the realm of the dead .

Bill Gates does not believe in God. But subscribes to Christian morality.

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/bill-gates-the-rolling-stone-interview-20140313

shadeyinka:
My Brother, thank you o. I have even used Anorexia to jug their oblongata into reasoning and arriving at an intelligent conclusion. I have used Beastiality as an example...I guess people have not found apologetics to that in GOOGLE.

I guess, it sometimes hurt to be wrong. Whether Homosexuality is right or wrong is bringing out deeper inseparable issues like who/what determines the concept of right or wrong, ethics, Is there a God ...?

Only donnffd, Weah96 and Coolusername have attempted to objectively discuss the issue but unanimously, they avoid the main question.

I thought Plaetton stated that the is evidence to show that kleptomaniacs, paedophiles etc. could have been born that way in some cases. But what is the connection between that and homosexuality? Aren't straight people born straight too? At least I know I was.

4everGod:
All men can digest milk. What they cannot digest is the lactose content. Get your facts right.

What?

4everGod:
Show me your statistical proof.

Source:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/12/27/168144785/an-evolutionary-whodunit-how-did-humans-develop-lactose-tolerance

shadeyinka:
Your argument sounds like:
" Dogs and Goats do not have sexual inhibition to their family members therefore, since this exist among animals, it should be OK for humans too."

If some animals practice cannibalism, does it make it OK for a human being to do so?

If you actually read the comment, you would've seen where I said that I was only trying to correct the false assumption.

KingEbukaNaija:
No , adult man can't still digest milk because of the loss of the milk digestive enzyme they had through out their childhood .

The hell? 35% of the earth's population can.

KingEbukaNaija:
Any rebuttal for this http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/first_tetrapod.html

The trace fossil tracks unfortunately, fail to give us enough information. They could simply a failed specie that couldn't survive. Inadequate information makes it hard to say anything definitive about it. But it is something to think about. Just not enough to disprove anything.

KingEbukaNaija:
Am an old earth creationist and I do believe most so called transitional fossils are not evidences of evolution . Eg the sea lion's fin , if that animal existed long ago they would associated it with birds as part of their ancestors .

The sees lion is a mammalian animal. It's skeleton is different and is doesn't even have a wishbone. It didn't exist long ago because it's not a party of the evolutionary timeline.

4everGod:
Coolusername your evolutionists claim that at some point fish jumped out of water and began to develop lungs. Lmao

How come lungfish die when on land for too long afterall they have lungs same with humans.

How come every fish that has ever mistakenly jumped out of water unto land has died. There has bee absolutely no fluke survivor.

Even in randomness the whole thing is ridiculous.

No. Lungfish didn't jump out of water, rather their ancestors were part of the gradual transition from water to land.

Catfish can survive out of water for a short while (still longer than sardines for example), lungfish and hagfish can survive for a longer time. Other now extinct species seemed even better suited for land locomotion. Amphibians can survive both in water and on land (although usually are better suited to one of them) and so on. Evolution is a very gradual process.

You need to read up on it to have any serious conversation, really. You've made a lot of ignorant statements in this debate.

1stCitizen:
Trying to call me a Christian when my initial argument was your belief in satanism is not digression? Wow! then attacking Christianity(Shocked at your denial) as handed down by the white man is not digression from the argument of your strong superstitious beliefs, which is what the thread is all about. Is that not digression.

What then is digression in the Atheist world? Let me digress as that is all you have done so far. Which of the earlier disciples of Christ that spread Christianity was a white man?

Show me where I called myself a christian. You cannot but rather inferring from statements that I quoted the Bible. For your info...Even the devil can quote the Bible and Quran. I have decided not to go down that route as I know you are trying to be diversionary. Yes Atheism is an idea developed and pursued by the whiteman in the 18th century and yes that makes you feel special. The early cultures that you try to label as Atheist just did not know what to believe until they found spiritual enlightenment.

The most shocking is the hypocrisy you display. You use the philosophy of the white man to oil the engine of your godlessness and tell the world that it is not the white man idea.

You can see the grudge from one of your pioneers and how your movement of disgruntled christian elements started.

Now lets go back to the main issue. Atheists are superstitious and the African Atheist is a hypocrite. I gave empirical research results to back up that fact so stop the circular arguments.

When did I call you a Christian? I'm not that guy you were arguing with the other day.